Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Been there done that multiple times(with success). Unfortunately im just a lowly person and the most i can influence the projects around me, and this would require higher ups to evolve(lol in public service). For now I will just take it one project at a time. Maybe one day
I will just follow the rest and lie flat, or maybe one day i will just quit quietly. Who knows?
|
And that's the exact problem. I've also done heroics during my time, but that was not repeatable over the long run (not to my mental health, and also not sustainable in terms of required talent).
If i've stayed on, I'd get embroiled in arguments with people on top who know nothing about the subject but insist that they're right. (as evidenced by a similarly talented colleague who decided to stay on)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
No one asking for insource every single project. Outsource those that are low on rewards, and insource those that are highly valuable. Just getting a small team of 2-4 SWE for every agency could do wonders in supporting the agencies.
|
It should be outsource when the system is stable and requirements not in a flux. Insource when nobody know what they wants and we are in a pathfinding stage. It's not about high or low value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
If outsourced SI can do it cheaper and better than govtech, then govtech has failed.
|
No they can do it cheaper than govt if the system is not changing and crashing all the time.
I would even go on to say the system after the pathfinding stage should be reimplemented by commercial (after the requirements are firmed up) for maintenance in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
We are not R&D, and we dont produce products competing with commercial.
|
Pathfinding is R&D, and that should what govtech should be doing. no commercial entity would touch govt r+d unless they are paid obscene amounts because the contract would be so open ended.